Reliability of measures of impairments associated with patellofemoral pain syndrome

BACKGROUND: The reliability and measurement error of several impairment measures used during the clinical examination of patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) has not been established. The purpose was to determine the inter-tester reliability and measurement error of measures of impairments associated with PFPS in patients with PFPS. METHODS: A single group repeated measures design was used. Two pairs of physical therapists participated in data collection. Examiners were blinded to each others' measurements. RESULTS: Thirty patients (age 29 +/- 8; 17 female) with PFPS participated in this study. Inter-tester reliability coefficients were substantial for measures of hamstrings, quadriceps, plantarflexors, and ITB/TFL complex length, hip abductors strength, and foot pronation (ICCs from .85 to .97); moderate for measures of Q-angle, tibial torsion, hip external rotation strength, lateral retinacular tightness, and quality of movement during a step down task (ICCs from .67 to .79); and poor for femoral anteversion (ICC of .45). Standard error of measurement (SEM) for measures of muscle length ranged from 1.6 degrees to 4.3 degrees. SEM for Q-angle, tibial torsion, and femoral anteversion were 2.4 degrees, 2.9 degrees, and 4.5 degrees respectively. SEM for foot pronation was 1 mm. SEM for measures of muscle strength was 1.8 Kg for abduction and 2.4 Kg for external rotation. CONCLUSION: Several of the impairments associated with PFPS had sufficient reliability and low measurement error. Further investigation is needed to test if these impairment measurements are related to physical function and whether or not they are useful for decision-making

Rotational knee laxity: Reliability of a simple measurement device in vivo

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Double bundle ACL reconstruction has been demonstrated to decrease rotational knee laxity. However, there is no simple, commercially-available device to measure knee rotation. The investigators developed a simple, non-invasive device to measure knee rotation. In conjunction with a rigid boot to rotate the tibia and a force/moment sensor to allow precise determination of torque about the knee, a magnetic tracking system measures the axial rotation of the tibia with respect to the femur. This device has been shown to have acceptable levels of test re-test reliability to measure knee rotation in cadaveric knees.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The objective of this study was to determine reliability of the device in measuring knee rotation of human subjects. Specifically, the intra-tester reliability within a single testing session, test-retest reliability between two testing sessions, and inter-tester reliability were assessed for 11 male subjects with normal knees.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The 95% confidence interval for rotation was less than 5° for intra-tester, test-retest, and inter-tester reliability, and the standard error of measurement for the differences between left and right knees was found to be less than 3°.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>It was found that the knee rotation measurements obtained with this device have acceptable limits of reliability for clinical use and interpretation.</p

Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament injury: panther symposium ACL injury clinical outcomes consensus group

© 2020, The Author(s). Purpose: A stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect for establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. The aim of this consensus statement was to establish what data should be reported when conducting an ACL outcome study, what specific outcome measurements should be used and at what follow-up time those outcomes should be assessed. Methods: To establish a standardized approach to assessment of clinical outcome after ACL treatment, a consensus meeting including a multidisciplinary group of ACL experts was held at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA; USA, in June 2019. The group reached consensus on nine statements by using a modified Delphi method. Results: In general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into four robust categories—early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment following ACL treatment should aim to provide a complete overview of the treatment result, optimally including the various aspects of outcome categories. For most research questions, a minimum follow-up of 2 years with an optimal follow-up rate of 80% is necessary to achieve a comprehensive assessment. This should include clinical examination, any sustained re-injuries, validated knee-specific PROs and Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires. In the mid- to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated. Conclusion: This consensus paper provides practical guidelines for how the aforementioned entities of outcomes should be reported and suggests the preferred tools for a reliable and valid assessment of outcome after ACL treatment. Level of evidence: V